Structure and Organization

This week’s reading of Boleman and Deal (2008) provided an interesting read.  Essentially, they discussed organizational structure, provided examples of what happens when an organization has a fluid structure and when the structure fails; who developed structural perspectives; and raised the question on whether organizations and people need structure.    According to Boleman and Deal (2008), structure is a blueprint of official sanctioned expectations and exchanges among internal players and external constituents which can help or hinder an organization.  They presented two cases:  management of the USS Kennedy which exemplified the complex workings of an aircraft carrier and the 9/11 terrorists attacks.  The aircraft contained more than 5,000 workers managed by a captain, yet on this aircraft everyone is assigned to a job and color coded in uniforms to identify who does what.  Seems as if everyone had a clear understanding of what their job role was.   In times of war you would need to know, otherwise small mistakes could lead to large catastrophes.  The case of 9/11 demonstrated what happens when you do have structure but that structure is so rigid with many layers that it fails the system.   In this case, government agencies had internal structures but failed miserably when external factors weren’t considered in communications.   Government agencies seemed to have worked more as an individual unit as opposed to working as a whole with external agencies. 

There were two important people that developed structural perspectives, Frederick W. Taylor and Max Weber.  Taylor termed “scientific management,” which is an approach to breaking down tasks and retraining workers to get the most out of each motion and second while at work (Boleman & Deal, 2008).  Then there was Weber.  He believed in a “monocratic bureaucracy,” where you have fixed division of labor, hierarchy of offices, rules, separation of personal from official property and rights, ability to select personnel and employment is long-term (Boleman & Deal, 2008). 

Do we really need structure in an organization?  Yes we do, whether large or small.    That is, if we are to have a successful business or be capable of providing public services.  In a small organization it might be acceptable to have an informal structure due to its size and the ability to manage people and their roles better, but large organizations cannot do without, primarily because of the number of personnel that needs to be managed.  In my opinion, a well put together structure in a large organization is one where a hierarchy exists, both employees and leaders understand their respective roles and use their positions to help advance the organization.  It is organized with leaders that know how to use their core processes, technology,
strategies and goals to help exert the best work from their employees.  Whether it is centralized or decentralized depends on the nature of the organization, the product it sells and the type of workforce it has.  I consider public service centralized due to the many layers it contains and its accountability to the people, although too many layers often hinders services.  Unfortunately, Joseph’s view of decentralizing would not fit the public service model but rather more towards a private business.  Joseph (n.d.) listed several advantages to decentralizing:

§  it empowers the employee;

§  relieves the owner from the burden of daily responsibilities;

§  helps with emergencies where an employee can step in if the owner is not present;

§  contributes to more decision-making by a manager as oppose to waiting on the chain of command; and

§  makes it easier to expand where a unit may function independently to meet area needs. 

According Kokemuller (n.d.), advantages to centralizing include:

§  a more focused vision;

§  fast execution of decision making among a few and key leaders;

§  reduced conflict because you only have few leaders making the decisions;

§  more control over the operation of the company; and

§  it is easier to identify who is accountable. 

For organizations to be successful there needs to be some type of coordinating because not all employees work or respect authority (Boleman and Neal, 2008).  Vertical coordination refers to formal chain of command, the group with authority that coordinates and plans work of the subordinates, and lateral coordination uses meetings, task forces or coordinating roles (Bolman and Neal, 2008).  By using lateral coordination, employees are more engaged and better able to assist with input on major company projects but at times it can bring conflict in a group with diverse ideas.  What is important is that all organizations whether large or small do have some type of structure because without one there is a potential for an unwanted chaotic environment; misunderstandings of roles and responsibilities; blame to spread and lack of accountability; instead of running an organized, efficient and effective operation.     

References: Joseph, Chris. (n.d.). The advantages of a decentralized structure. Chron. Demand Media. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-decentralized-organizational-structure-603.html

Kokemuller, Neil. (n.d.). The advantages of a centralized structure.  Chron. Demand Media. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantags-centralized-organizational-structure-21410.html